Liberal Fascism

[SDW2001]

Below you will find a link to a perfect example of the left's hypocrisy as it pertains to "diversity of opinion," particularly in America's institutions of higher learning. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a fierce opponent fo illegal immigration, was supposed to give a speech at MSU. However, both he and the student organizers were essentially assaulted...some physically.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4755896


Where is the left's apparent love of freedom of speech? Isn't it essential to hear all viewpoints, particularly at the college level? If they really believed that, why not let the man speak by demonstrating peacefully?

Now, when it comes to liberal opinion, well that's a different story. Penn State can have an event called "C*nt Fest" and few seem to care. Liberal speakers can give speeches without reprisal. But if you're a conservative? Well then you're a racist hate monger and should have your face spit on and your tires slashed.

This all goes to the point that the left wing loves free speech as long as its liberal speech, particuarly in colleges.

[shetline]

Show me that there's an organized Left with a strong majority among them supportive of such things, as opposed to anecdotal citations of the Right's favorite bogymen. Something that's as clear as, say, the Congressional voting record.

Until then, you're just blowing smoke. I don't need to play up mere scattered bad incidents to form an extremely low opinion of the Right, nor to have good reason to fear its fascist tendencies.

[Chris Cuilla]

Show me that there's an organized Left...

...form an extremely low opinion of the Right, nor to have good reason to fear its fascist tendencies.

No organized and unified left...but an organized and unified right.

Got it.

:lol:

[Chris Cuilla]

A contradiction in terms anyway.

Well, if "liberal" today really meant what it once did, yes. But many so-called liberals (today) indeed are quite opposed to liberty (and thus not liberals in the classical sense) for certain things, people, activities, etc. and are on the path toward fascism (only of the socialistic variety)...but fascism nonetheless. Still, I would agree that a better title might be "Leftist Fascism".

[jimmac]

Below you will find a link to a perfect example of the left's hypocrisy as it pertains to "diversity of opinion," particularly in America's institutions of higher learning. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a fierce opponent fo illegal immigration, was supposed to give a speech at MSU. However, both he and the student organizers were essentially assaulted...some physically.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4755896


Where is the left's apparent love of freedom of speech? Isn't it essential to hear all viewpoints, particularly at the college level? If they really believed that, why not let the man speak by demonstrating peacefully?

Now, when it comes to liberal opinion, well that's a different story. Penn State can have an event called "C*nt Fest" and few seem to care. Liberal speakers can give speeches without reprisal. But if you're a conservative? Well then you're a racist hate monger and should have your face spit on and your tires slashed.

This all goes to the point that the left wing loves free speech as long as its liberal speech, particuarly in colleges.


" Where is the left's apparent love of freedom of speech? "

Haven't you heard? That was canceled with illegal wire tapping!:lol:

Those are some mighty fine straws you're clutching at there.;)

[Splinemodel]

Well, fascism + socialist economic policy = Soviet communism. The term "liberal" nowadays doesn't really pertain to a group of thinkers who value freedom absolutely, the way it did in the 18th century. So bizarrely enough, I think it's entirely possible for there to be "liberal fascists." I think SDW is trying to use this term to single-out the people who O'Reilly calls "social progressives." I know that a lot of people aren't exactly big fans of the guy, but I can't really see anything objectionable about this particular nomenclature, which he probably didn't even coin. (he just likes it A LOT).

And I have to admit, I don't think I've ever met a social-progressive who'd I'd consider to be open-minded. They seem to have a rigid counter-culture based on the cardinal virtue of white-guilt. It's a brand of fundamentalism in its own right.

The only thing, though, that I detest about "the left," which is not limited to social-progressivism, is how snippy vocal liberals seem to be. As evidenced by the post above (and a zillion other posts on the internet), there's no substantive argument, just a self-satisfying quip that attempts to defer the call to debate. For all of the grief we can give to the right-wing talk radio echo chamber, I have a hard time deciding if it's more or less irritating than the left's self-generated laugh parade. In this sense, I think it's very easy to consider the left to be closed-minded -- whenever engaged, it seems all too common that lefties just try to defer arguments instead of listening and thinking about what their position actually is.

[Chris Cuilla]

If liberals were fascists, then they wouldn't be liberals anymore would they? ;)

Exactly right. My point was that what is called "liberal" today is different than true (classical) liberalism.

It's really a right-wing thing.

Well I wouldn't say that fascism is limited to the right...it is also a leftist thing...just centered around different goals or issues.

[BRussell]

A couple of liberal college students are assholes! Fox News will have 24-hour coverage all month!

[jimmac]

O'Reilly calls them 'secular progressives" actually.

"White guilt" is psychological mumbo-jumbo that *may* have certain applications elsewhere. But as far as the motivations for enacting liberal social and economic policies, I don't think it's even on the radar. Wouldn't you think that deep-seated notions of fairness or justice would drive those policies? You're not giving those considerations a fair shake, when you know, they are kinda obviously the answer.

And I wouldn't hold jimmac as exemplifying a "liberal" type of discourse. I mean his heart is in the right place, but no one, liberals included, are gonna nominate him for Post of the Year or anything. People have different posting styles and listening skills differ across the ideological spectrum. I doubt there's a correlation. More likely it's just you being pissed off.


" I mean his heart is in the right place, but no one, liberals included, are gonna nominate him for Post of the Year or anything. "

Awwww! And here I already had my acceptance speech all prepared and everything!:lol:

[thuh Freak]

no one, liberals included, are gonna nominate him for Post of the Year or anything.

Cool, I'm still in the running.



This group does seem to have behaved in a very closed minded way. Doesn't appear to reflect typical liberal viewpoint on freedom of speech. Remember, its liberals, like the ACLU, who fight for the freedom of speech of the vilest and most disgusting people solely on principle.

[SpcMs]

Well, I read here that the protest was because of Tancredo's recent remarks suggesting the U.S. consider bombing Muslim holy sites.
http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1030
Something worth protesting against, wouldn't you say SDW?

Of course, the article you linked failed to mention this. Actually, the article apparently is little more than a word-for-word reprint of an email written by Tancredo himself.

[MajorMatt]

Aye, this is an isolated incident. I mean, people were allowed to wear liberal t-shirts and stay at those 2004 Bush rallies. Oh, wait...

[MacRR]

Even more disgusting-

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/17/bush.protester/index.html

Wearing a T-shirt with the message "President Bush You Killed My Son," Sue Niederer of nearby Hopewell screamed questions at the first lady as the audience tried to drown her out by chanting "four more years, four more years."

I can see that she was removed- but the audience drowning her out with that crap is fuk-ING disgusting. I remember then when I read it how sick I felt.

[Chris Cuilla]

Even more disgusting-

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/17/bush.protester/index.html



I can see that she was removed- but the audience drowning her out with that crap is fuk-ING disgusting. I remember then when I read it how sick I felt.

So...you object to the volume used by some people exercising their free speech rights? The number of people exercising their rights at the same time? What is it exactly?

[addabox]

On the other hand, words have actual meanings beyond their utility as insults: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism)

Fascism (IPA: [?fæ??zm]) is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-liberalism and anti-communism.

.....Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that today there exist very few self-identified fascists. The word has become a slur throughout the political spectrum since the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, and it has been extremely uncommon for any political groups to call themselves fascist since 1945. In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views. There are no major self-proclaimed fascist parties or organizations anywhere in the world.


Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".

Two particular definitions reflect the fact that Fascism has always arisen from an extreme right-wing ideology:
(1) "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." --American Heritage Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983)
(2) "Extreme right-wing totalitarian political system or views, as orig. prevailing in Italy (1922-43)." --The Pocket Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1984)

A recent definition is that by former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
"1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."

When the right, which actually is authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic, power driven, has a weakness for strong-men, is obsessed by cultural decline and eager to make common cause with corporate interests speaks of "liberal fascism" it's merely the crudest kind of projection (which seems to be something of a hallmark of modern conservatism, though whether by cynical design or psychological compulsion I can't say).

Liberals can be intolerant of divergent view-points. College students can be mono-maniacal assholes, since black and white thinking kind of goes with the territory.

To go from that to "fascism" is at best ignorant, at worst aggressively dishonest. Not to mention fucking grotesque.

I eagerly await the threads entitled "Liberals are xenophobic imperialists", "Liberals are secretly sympathetic to the old confederacy", and "Liberals are too focused on gun ownership as a signifier of personal empowerment".

[Gilsch]

To go from that to "fascism" is at best ignorant, at worst aggressively dishonest. Not to mention fucking grotesque.
Nice post. Sounded more like retarded to me. Big crowd too. "About forty". :lol:

[FormerLurker]

To go from that to "fascism" is at best ignorant, at worst aggressively dishonest. Not to mention fucking grotesque.

I eagerly await the threads entitled "Liberals are xenophobic imperialists", "Liberals are secretly sympathetic to the old confederacy", and "Liberals are too focused on gun ownership as a signifier of personal empowerment".
Well, I found this one on another forum:
Hitler Was A Liberal (http://forums.courier-journal.com/viewtopic.php?t=23188)

:lol:

[midwinter]

Searching...searching....searching....

Ah. Got it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being attacked for what you say.

Cf. Michael Moore.

EOM

[Chris Cuilla]

On the other hand, words have actual meanings beyond their utility as insults: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism)

Indeed they do: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

or

"Oppressive, dictatorial control."

These are not traits exclusive to "the right".

[Chris Cuilla]

Well, I found this one on another forum:
Hitler Was A Liberal (http://forums.courier-journal.com/viewtopic.php?t=23188)

:lol:

Well, he was a socialist anyway.

So was Mussolini BTW...who was also a fascist.

Fascism is more about method than the particular ideology. It stems primarily from the I/we know what's "best" and so I/we should use the government to ensure that what's "best" happens.

[Chris Cuilla]

Searching...searching....searching....

Ah. Got it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being attacked for what you say.

Cf. Michael Moore.

EOM

Well attacked verbally...physically is another matter altogether.

[midwinter]

Well attacked verbally...physically is another matter altogether.

Indeed.


There were at least three violent incidents with protestors targeting student backers of the event, Tancredo, R-Littleton, said today.

"One was spit on, one was kicked, and one was punched," Tancredo said in an e-mail. "Tires were also slashed."

The people who attacked those three Tancredo supporters should be arrested and charged with assault. The idea that they are representative of the left is, of course, another of SDW's laughable strawmen arguments.

[addabox]

Well, he was a socialist anyway.

So was Mussolini BTW...who was also a fascist.

Fascism is more about method than the particular ideology. It stems primarily from the I/we know what's "best" and so I/we should use the government to ensure that what's "best" happens.

Nonsense. All ideologies believe that their way is "best", otherwise they wouldn't be an ideology. Using the government to achieve those ends is absolutely normative behavior in western democracies (and beats the shit out of achieving such ends via roving militias, a campaign of terror bombings, or armed insurrection, which are sort of the other options).

Fascism is distinguished by a marriage of virulent nationalism (usually coupled with aggressively defined enemies, both external and internal), corporatism, a fierce resentment of "internationalism" and its agents, kitsch level pining for "traditional values" and an attendant notion of "purity" (frequently racially derived), cultish worship of "strength" and "strong leaders", and regimentation based on notions of "discipline" and "honor".

It's actually a terrible idea for people on the right to even bring up fascism, no matter how clever they think they are being, because the comparisons to to current ideologies are so deeply unflattering.

[Chris Cuilla]

Nonsense.

No.

Fascism is distinguished by a marriage of virulent nationalism (usually coupled with aggressively defined enemies, both external and internal), corporatism, a fierce resentment of "internationalism" and its agents, kitsch level pining for "traditional values" and an attendant notion of "purity" (frequently racially derived), cultish worship of "strength" and "strong leaders", and regimentation based on notions of "discipline" and "honor".

Thanks for providing your editorial characterization. But in essence the simplist definition works fine and does not require all of the baggage you've piled on.

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

You haven't provided any reason why this definition cannot apply to the left as well as the right.

[ronaldo]

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were true facsists,I don't believe the liberal left is any where close.
Now the current Republican adminisration on the other hand, I believe are a lot closer to facsists, in fact Bush even said he wouldn't mind being a Dictator.
From Wikpedia: In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views. There are no major self-proclaimed fascist parties or organizations anywhere in the world.

Since rhe liberal left is the opposite of what SDW's views are, then they are facsists in his mind.

[sammi jo]

Mussolini did say that Fascism "should more properly be called corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), being a merger of state and corporate power". However, the modern term "fascism" has been redefined to imply totalitarianism and all that accompanies such (military or other style dictatorship, no real democratic/electoral process, relatively few civil liberties and rights, arbitrary imprisonment/kangaroo justice... and all the baggage that goes with such).

Bearing that redefinition in mind, it is absurd to suggest that the current system in place in the US is anywhere near that variety of "fascism", despite a number of current trends in that direction. However, "corporatism" is a pretty good fit: One just has to look at the parties and organizations who influence peoples' lives and livelihoods to the greatest extent.. and one comes up with non-governmental, private, unelected parties in big business every time... especially the multinationals, big banks, credit card companies, etc etc. To argue that our elected representatives are the ones whose decisions affect us the most is also moot... since they are also in the pockets of big business and financial institutions.

No conspiracy required here: its the natural evolution of the system we have in place. it could be described as a "Quasi-Democratic Republicorporatocracy". (ouch)

[MacRR]

I think it's disgusting that the first lady would allow her audience to scream four more years over the mother of a deceased soldier. The same people that would skewer anyone for objecting to the war would at the same time skewer a mother who lost her son in the war they support. It disgusts me in the same way pedophiles disgust me.

I have no problem with free speech, but I still think it's a disgusting occurrence, and it's fucking shameful. It's inhuman. It means that no one in this crowd of people had any sense of decency, only a ferverence to their political party.

How do you think this soldier would feel to know that after he died for his country, his grieving mother would get shouted out of a room with the first lady presiding over and letting this animalistic crowd regulate her speech? :no:

Yeah, that's supporting our troops. You think the deceased soldier's platoon didn't find out about that?

Like I said- disgusting.



So...you object to the volume used by some people exercising their free speech rights? The number of people exercising their rights at the same time? What is it exactly?

[Chris Cuilla]

I think it's disgusting that the first lady would allow her audience to scream four more years over the mother of a deceased soldier. The same people that would skewer anyone for objecting to the war would at the same time skewer a mother who lost her son in the war they support. It disgusts me in the same way pedophiles disgust me.

I have no problem with free speech, but I still think it's a disgusting occurrence, and it's fucking shameful. It's inhuman. It means that no one in this crowd of people had any sense of decency, only a ferverence to their political party.

How do you think this soldier would feel to know that after he died for his country, his grieving mother would get shouted out of a room with the first lady presiding over and letting this animalistic crowd regulate her speech? :no:

Yeah, that's supporting our troops. You think the deceased soldier's platoon didn't find out about that?

Like I said- disgusting.

OK. You are greatly offended. We get that.

Now...should the crowd's speech be stopped, prevented, disallowed, etc.?

[jimmac]

OK. You are greatly offended. We get that.

Now...should the crowd's speech be stopped, prevented, disallowed, etc.?


Who's " We " ?

The crowd was out of control and violating the woman's freedom of speech not the other way around. So in this case since they were out of line and suppressing her say they should be stopped until they can be civil. Then both sides can talk and be heard.

[Chris Cuilla]

The crowd was out of control and violating the woman's freedom of speech not the other way around.

How? Because they were louder?

[jimmac]

How? Because they were louder?


Simply Chris because it's one against many. It's the right way to look at it as you would say. And have said in earlier situations. Remember your comments about majority rule and being right? Well this isn't a voting situation and the woman was one against many. She needs to be heard also. Not drowned out by a crowd.

If you can't understand these concepts you're just being obstinate.

[Chris Cuilla]

She needs to be heard also. Not drowned out by a crowd.

Ummm...no. She doesn't need to be.

She has the right to express herself. She doesn't have the right to compel anyone to listen (which is basically what you are saying). It is the right to freedom of speech...not the right to force people to listen.

Certainly the shouters may have been rude. But violating her rights they were not.

Furthermore, out shouting someone does not rise to the level of physical obstruction or violence (a valid argument about infringing someone's rights).

[MacRR]

Chris-

IMO there is a lot more to derive out of the situation than the crowd's freedom of speech. Who is challenging anyone's freedom of speech?

I never did, nor did I bring it up as such.

Why not address the original dynamic of the reason I posted that example.

This freedom of speech tangent is frankly nothing other than your desire to ignore the real problem in that situation.

[midwinter]

Is it even possible for an individual in a non-gov't position to violate someone's freedom of speech?

[addabox]

Ummm...no. She doesn't need to be.

She has the right to express herself. She doesn't have the right to compel anyone to listen (which is basically what you are saying). It is the right to freedom of speech...not the right to force people to listen.

Certainly the shouters may have been rude. But violating her rights they were not.

Furthermore, out shouting someone does not rise to the level of physical obstruction or violence (a valid argument about infringing someone's rights).

How is shouting someone down not "physical obstruction"? What else would it be? What is the difference in keeping someone from speaking, and allowing that person to speak but rendering the speech inaudible?

The difference is you have a point to make and your not going to let counter examples deter you. So you will make distinctions without difference, tirelessly.

[addabox]

No.



Thanks for providing your editorial characterization. But in essence the simplist definition works fine and does not require all of the baggage you've piled on.

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

You haven't provided any reason why this definition cannot apply to the left as well as the right.

How does "the simplest definition" "work" "fine"? Work for what? What are your criteria for fine?

If we are trying to define a complex concept with a great deal of historical and ideological import why would "simplist" be preferable? Why would an acknowledgment of such historical and ideological import be "baggage"? Are you saying that my characterization of what fascism entails is false? How are specific citations of broadly accepted aspects of fascism "editorialization"? Can you link to an extended discussion of fascism that doesn't include those concepts?

Here is the slightly extended citation on the same dictionary.com site, from The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.


It appears that you feel that a selective reading of the already impoverished definition you found on dictionary.com is sufficiently broad to allow for the construct "liberal fascism", but to do so is pointless and literally meaningless. Do you imagine that I am obliged to simply ignore the vast body of literature surrounding the phenomena of fascism in order to humor your conceit?

"Fascism" does, in fact, carry connotations of militarism, nationalism (including ideas of "purity"), scapegoating of external or internal enemies, corporatism, and appeals to what are imagined to be earlier, unsullied versions of the "national character"-- a return to "greatness".

We know this because the explicitly fascist regimes which form the undergirding of the concept all shared these characteristics. Playing stupid doesn't change anything.

[midwinter]

The more important question is this: why on earth are y'all using the dictionary to discuss fascism?

[MacRR]

hahaha true :)

[Chris Cuilla]

This freedom of speech tangent is frankly nothing other than your desire to ignore the real problem in that situation.

But what is the "real" problem as you see it? I see bunch of people all exercising their rights on all sides. Albeit a bit obnoxiously (on all sides...except Mrs. Bush herself).

[Chris Cuilla]

How is shouting someone down not "physical obstruction"?

Because it isn't.

The difference is you have a point to make and your not going to let counter examples deter you. So you will make distinctions without difference, tirelessly.

And you have no point and no defensible position on this. Her rights were not infringed. Live with it.

[MacRR]

But what is the "real" problem as you see it? I see bunch of people all exercising their rights on all sides. Albeit a bit obnoxiously (on all sides...except Mrs. Bush herself).
You see a bunch of people excercising their freedom of speech?

that's nice.

I see a group of hypocritical people dishonoring a soldier by putting their politics before supporting a soldier who gave his life for his country.

I also see a weak first lady who can't support a soldier due to peer pressure from a crowd assuming she would even care- and I hope she would.

[Chris Cuilla]

You see a bunch of people excercising their freedom of speech?

that's nice.

I see a group of hypocritical people dishonoring a soldier by putting their politics before supporting a soldier who gave his life for his country.

I also see a weak first lady who can't support a soldier due to peer pressure from a crowd assuming she would even care- and I hope she would.

OK. And? Sometimes it gets messy and ugly.

[MacRR]

OK. And? Sometimes it gets messy and ugly.
Isn't that a shame. :(

[addabox]

Because it isn't.

What else would it be? Mind control? Or are you going to redefine "physical" now, as well?

And you have no point and no defensible position on this. Her rights were not infringed. Live with it.

Huh, you're right, I don't seem to have any..... oh, wait, you edited it out. Cool, I didn't know we could do that. From now on I'll just quote you as saying nothing at all and laugh hard at how inarticulate you are.

But anyway and so, again, what is the difference in keeping someone from speaking, and allowing that person to speak but rendering the speech inaudible?

And, again, it appears the difference, for you, is which example serves in what capacity vis your a priori notions of good guys and bad guys.

Certainly the outcome, preventing the speech from being heard, is the same in both instances, so it's hard to know what other criteria we would be using for discerning between "grave breach of constitutional rights" and "nothing to see here, move along".

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Well, he was a socialist anyway.

So was Mussolini BTW...who was also a fascist.

Fascism is more about method than the particular ideology. It stems primarily from the I/we know what's "best" and so I/we should use the government to ensure that what's "best" happens.
This isn't true. Or rather, it's true for all forms of dictatorship, but it's not a definition of fascism.

Fascism comes with very specific notions of statehood founded on a national or an ethnic myth, really specific military and economic crossovers and it has all to do with control of a population and whatnot.

It's not just some term you can use to describe people whose politics you disagree with but a system of government defined by attributes like the production and exploitation of intense patriotism, an emphasis on national symbols (like flags, or huge buildings), surveillance of the population, state-sanctioned violence against dissidents, secret prisons, the militarisation of the civilian sphere... stuff like that.

[Chucker]

Fascism is term far too vague to be of much use. It's generally used as a pejorative means of denigrating whatever political views one disagrees with.

Ergo, don't use it.

End of thread. :)

[Chris Cuilla]

Isn't that a shame. :(

You're upset that I didn't get upset and start throwing around the word "disgusting" a 1/2-dozen times and calling it "fucking shameful" and making comparisons to pedophiles?

Sorry.

:rolleyes:

[Chris Cuilla]

What else would it be? Mind control? Or are you going to redefine "physical" now, as well?

Well, I haven't redfined anything. But I don't see how one person (or group) using their right of free speech must be quelled in deference to another person's right of free speech. I mean, what would have happened if they had all just covered their ears and the microphones and cameras were shut off? Same story. No one stoppe dher from speaking (she BTW...was interrupting the first lady's speech, so according to this reasoning she was the first to infringe upon someone's freedom of speech rights).

It just doesn't work that way. It isn't a "right to be heard". It is a right to say what you want but not to compel anyone to listen. That's silly.

[Chris Cuilla]

How does "the simplest definition" "work" "fine"?

It works fine because it captures the essence of what fascism is without the baggage of specific historical implementation of it.

Why would an acknowledgment of such historical and ideological import be "baggage"?

Because it obscure the essence of what it is by come specific implementation which may not be present in every past, present or future example of fascism.

Are you saying that my characterization of what fascism entails is false?

Because it unnecessarily narrows the definition in ways that are dangerous blinding people to the possibility that anything that does not fit the precise, narrow example is not fascism and therefore nothing to be concerned with, when, in fact, it is.

Here is the slightly extended citation on the same dictionary.com site, from The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.


These three examples are interesting, especially the common belief that fascism is described as "right-wing" when, in fact, these three were all leftists. Socialists in fact (if not in word, in deed).

But more to the point, you fail to explain how leftists are immune to the core traits of fascism, even by your more detailed definitions. Unless, of course, the expanded definition include, "Well they are also right-wing". But that would tautological.

Even more importantly, as I stated before these "traits" of fascism are merely strategies or tactics that are serving the primary purpose of subjugation of the people of a nation. But they need not be limited either to these specifics or to a specific side (left vs. right) of the political spectrum.

"Fascism" does, in fact, carry connotations of militarism, nationalism (including ideas of "purity"), scapegoating of external or internal enemies, corporatism, and appeals to what are imagined to be earlier, unsullied versions of the "national character"-- a return to "greatness".

And you have failed to explain how the left is immune to using these strategies and tactics to achieve its own objectives.

[MacRR]

You're upset that I didn't get upset and start throwing around the word "disgusting" a 1/2-dozen times and calling it "fucking shameful" and making comparisons to pedophiles?

Sorry.

:rolleyes:
um.... no... heh.

You're just a misguided cog in a wheel. Somewhat of a plain and uninspired person, it would seem.

However, it is a shame that "it" sometimes gets messy. That can be pretty upsetting, but hey- that is life.

[Chris Cuilla]

You're just a misguided cog in a wheel. Somewhat of a plain and uninspired person, it would seem.

And now you must turn to personal insults.

However, it is a shame that "it" sometimes gets messy. That can be pretty upsetting, but hey- that is life.

I agree. It is a shame. I hope that the exercise of people's rights will remain civilized and respectful. It doesn't always. Often in the heat of emotion (as you plainly demonstrated). But, yes, it is life. We have to take the good with the bad. The ugly speech with that which we adore and appreciate.

[jimmac]

Ummm...no. She doesn't need to be.

She has the right to express herself. She doesn't have the right to compel anyone to listen (which is basically what you are saying). It is the right to freedom of speech...not the right to force people to listen.

Certainly the shouters may have been rude. But violating her rights they were not.

Furthermore, out shouting someone does not rise to the level of physical obstruction or violence (a valid argument about infringing someone's rights).

Being loud and rude won't ever get your point across and it's just wrong. Especially in crowd form. A concept that you should be familure with. But I guess you choose to play dumb and obstinate. What a surprise!:no:

Ps. Chris it's everyone's right to say what they feel. When an individual or group obstructs that by overwhelming the other it's violating their personal rights.

Otherwise all you have is a shouting match not an intellectual exchange. Surely you understand the difference?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

It works fine because it captures the essence of what fascism is without the baggage of specific historical implementation of it.

Please read my post above. Fascism already has a definition. It is not your definition. Yours is a new definition, and has nothing to do with the definition that everybody else in the world, historians and political historians, students and writers, for example, have used and understood for decades.

Because it obscure the essence of what it is by come specific implementation which may not be present in every past, present or future example of fascism.
The accepted definition of fascism works just fine, thanks. This 'historical baggage' is absolutely vital to our understanding of what fascism is.

Because it unnecessarily narrows the definition in ways that are dangerous blinding people to the possibility that anything that does not fit the precise, narrow example is not fascism and therefore nothing to be concerned with, when, in fact, it is.
Think of a new term to use other than 'fascism', then. Please, read some history. Google Mussolini. Please.

These three examples are interesting, especially the common belief that fascism is described as "right-wing" when, in fact, these three were all leftists. Socialists in fact (if not in word, in deed).
Where to start with something so utterly, totally incorrect? This statement, which is complete nonsense, either betrays a fundamental ignorance of the facts or a desire to bend those poor facts to the service of your own politics.

Even more importantly, as I stated before these "traits" of fascism are merely strategies or tactics that are serving the primary purpose of subjugation of the people of a nation..
This is not right. It's just... not. Fascism is not a 'strategy' at all. It's what you get when a bunch of specific things are in a place in governance of a state.

Your definition is not correct according to any text book anywhere on the planet.

[MacRR]

No personal insult intended...

You said that despite the particulars of that situation where the mother of a deceased soldier was yelled out of a room with a political slogan, it was just the way things are. Pretty much a defeatist attitude, no?

I gave details as to why it was wrong on more than a few levels, Yet, you insisted that it was about free speech.

That is in effect a very plain outlook (be solely concerned with that crowd's free speech rights as opposed to concern for the mother and the dark underlying wrongness of her treatment) and very uninspired (that's just the way things are).

If that comes off as a personal insult, well, my man, you need to look to yourself on that. I was just observing :).

Btw- please don't mistake my discourse for emotion. I find that if I round out my point with certain flair it gets a better response or debate.

What I'd like to point out, given the subject matter, you could be in a place to change the bad to a good, put your standards above "ugly speech", but instead opt that that's just the way things are. Sort of humorous, no? I mean it's almost ironic that you'd consider my observation a personal insult, but be so concerned about that crowd's free speech. :)




And now you must turn to personal insults.



I agree. It is a shame. I hope that the exercise of people's rights will remain civilized and respectful. It doesn't always. Often in the heat of emotion (as you plainly demonstrated). But, yes, it is life. We have to take the good with the bad. The ugly speech with that which we adore and appreciate.

[SDW2001]

Show me that there's an organized Left with a strong majority among them supportive of such things, as opposed to anecdotal citations of the Right's favorite bogymen. Something that's as clear as, say, the Congressional voting record.

Until then, you're just blowing smoke. I don't need to play up mere scattered bad incidents to form an extremely low opinion of the Right, nor to have good reason to fear its fascist tendencies.

You're kidding, right? Incidents like this have been widespread. By "like this" I mean the physical disruption of conservative speech. Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?

[SDW2001]

Well, I read here that the protest was because of Tancredo's recent remarks suggesting the U.S. consider bombing Muslim holy sites.
http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1030
Something worth protesting against, wouldn't you say SDW?

Of course, the article you linked failed to mention this. Actually, the article apparently is little more than a word-for-word reprint of an email written by Tancredo himself.

Wait...you're dismissing the source and linking to a blog at the same time? Are you kidding? Secondly, you're missing the point. They can protest whatever they want. Good for them. What they cannot and should not do is disrupt the speech and/or try to silence the person with whom they disagree. It's not very "progressive" of them. In fact, it's not very American of them, now is it?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?
Yes. Universities are full of students. Students are like that. They grow out of it.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

In fact, it's not very American of them, now is it?
No: not unless they're shouting down a bereaved mother.

Four more years! Four more years!

[Chris Cuilla]

You said that despite the particulars of that situation where the mother of a deceased soldier was yelled out of a room with a political slogan, it was just the way things are. Pretty much a defeatist attitude, no?

Well, maybe, maybe not. I agree that discourse in our nation is often uncivilized and that people are treated often rudely. I don't like it. But I realize it as a reality.

"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters." -- Frederick Douglass

I gave details as to why it was wrong on more than a few levels, Yet, you insisted that it was about free speech.

Fine it is wrong...even despicable. But so what? What should we (you, me, someone else) do about it exactly?

That is in effect a very plain outlook (be solely concerned with that crowd's free speech rights as opposed to concern for the mother and the dark underlying wrongness of her treatment) and very uninspired (that's just the way things are).

Who says I am unconcerned about her feelings? This thread started with a discussion about some small group trying to disrupt (using physical violence and aggression) the (speech) rights of another. You posted a counter example. I did not interpret the thread to be about anyone's particular feelings about unsavory speech...but the direct actions taken by one group against another for expressing their (perhaps unsavory) thoughts.

What I'd like to point out, given the subject matter, you could be in a place to change the bad to a good, put your standards above "ugly speech", but instead opt that that's just the way things are.

You are assuming a lot here.

What makes you think that I am in a position to change the bad to good? For/with whom? Where? When? I have control over myself. I have influence over a handful of people in my family and my circle of friends and aquaintences (none of whom exercise their freedoms in ways that are rude or offensive anyway, so not much bad to change to good there.) What should I do that would satisfy you? What have you done (other than rant off about it)?

I agree that both the chanting crowd behaved in rude fasion, as did the women who interrupted the speech by shouting at Mrs. Bush in the first place.

I would love for people to exercise themselves in more polite and dignified manners...but this is one of the prices of liberty...I have to tolerate other people exercising their liberty (except where they seek to perpetrate force or violence aganist me, my property or someone else) in ways that I don't care for (or even find despicable). There are plenty of expressions of liberty that I find despicable and shameful. But I have to tolerate this...all the while trying to influence people I interact with to exercise their liberty in responsible, respectful and honorable ways.

[Chris Cuilla]

Fascism already has a definition. It is not your definition. Yours is a new definition

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. -- American Heritage Dictionary

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition -- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

[addabox]

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.

No, actually, we need to take it up with you.

You want to claim that "liberal fascism" is a coherent concept, beyond just sort of "liberals are capable of evil", or something.

To do so requires one take the measure of fascism, which is a complex political and social phenomena far beyond the reach of a single line dictionary definition.

Taking that measure quickly puts your formulation into the weeds, which is why you don't want to go there.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.
But... these definitions support everything I just wrote.

So, yeah, I'm glad you concede that fascism is a system of governance and not a strategy and that Hitler, Mussolini, Franco weren't 'leftists', I suppose.

It is very frustrating arguing with you.

[SDW2001]

Yes. Universities are full of students. Students are like that. They grow out of it.

I'm not talking about the students.

No: not unless they're shouting down a bereaved mother.

Four more years! Four more years!

If that's a Sheehan jab, then you've really made it too easy for me. No one, to my knowledge has said Cindy Sheehan doesn't have a right to say what she says. Some just think she's being exploited by opponents of the President. Has she been physically assaulted by the other side? (and don't try and post some photo of her being arrested either...that's crap and you know it).

[SDW2001]

No, actually, we need to take it up with you.

You want to claim that "liberal fascism" is a coherent concept, beyond just sort of "liberals are capable of evil", or something.

To do so requires one take the measure of fascism, which is a complex political and social phenomena far beyond the reach of a single line dictionary definition.

Taking that measure quickly puts your formulation into the weeds, which is why you don't want to go there.

You know what I think we should do? I think we should focus on the technical and semantical meaning of the thread title....instead of dicussing the actual concept of liberals surpressing free speech when it's speech they dislike!

[BRussell]

I don't have any problem calling people who shout down or attack legitimate speakers assholes, or fascists, or whatever other bad name you want. I'm sure liberals and conservatives do it both, but it seems like liberals, especially on campuses, do it too often, and they should cut it out.

[SpcMs]

Wait...you're dismissing the source and linking to a blog at the same time? Are you kidding? Secondly, you're missing the point. They can protest whatever they want. Good for them. What they cannot and should not do is disrupt the speech and/or try to silence the person with whom they disagree. It's not very "progressive" of them. In fact, it's not very American of them, now is it?
Let's say both sources are at least equally dubious. And not silencing the person with whom they disagree? Apparently when said person is a mother who's son died in Iraq silencing is a-ok, when it's a guy who suggests to bomb holy sites, well... not so much... :err:
(just to be clear, I don't think violence is acceptable in any case)

[addabox]

You know what I think we should do? I think we should focus on the technical and semantical meaning of the thread title....instead of dicussing the actual concept of liberals surpressing free speech when it's speech they dislike!

You started a thread entitled "Liberal Fascism". Talking about what fascism actually is in such a thread is hardly "technical" or "semantical". If you just wanted to talk about liberals "suppressing free speech when it's speech they dislike" perhaps you should try a less histrionic thread title, like "liberals are dreadful hypocrites".

How 'bout I start a thread entitled "All conservatives are just like Stalin", and then get pissy when people insist on talking about how that idea doesn't really hold water, because I expected them to understand I just meant "conservatives can be somewhat authoritarian"? You would lose your fucking mind.

So either respond to the ample demonstrations of why "fascism" is an entirely inappropriate word for characterizing the American left, withdraw the thread title, or STFU.

[MacRR]

Well alright, Chris.

This is the exact kind of thinking I was hoping you'd work out with yourself.


I retract my earlier statement based on your response. :)






What makes you think that I am in a position to change the bad to good? For/with whom? Where? When? I have control over myself. I have influence over a handful of people in my family and my circle of friends and aquaintences (none of whom exercise their freedoms in ways that are rude or offensive anyway, so not much bad to change to good there.) What should I do that would satisfy you? What have you done (other than rant off about it)?

I agree that both the chanting crowd behaved in rude fasion, as did the women who interrupted the speech by shouting at Mrs. Bush in the first place.

I would love for people to exercise themselves in more polite and dignified manners...but this is one of the prices of liberty...I have to tolerate other people exercising their liberty (except where they seek to perpetrate force or violence aganist me, my property or someone else) in ways that I don't care for (or even find despicable). There are plenty of expressions of liberty that I find despicable and shameful. But I have to tolerate this...all the while trying to influence people I interact with to exercise their liberty in responsible, respectful and honorable ways.

[MacRR]

:wow:

Why did you start this thread again? heh :)

You know what I think we should do? I think we should focus on the technical and semantical meaning of the thread title....instead of dicussing the actual concept of liberals surpressing free speech when it's speech they dislike!

[jimmac]

You're kidding, right? Incidents like this have been widespread. By "like this" I mean the physical disruption of conservative speech. Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?

No they're just people who know how to think. They don't fall for the stuff that's been coming out of the whitehouse lately.

[ronaldo]

No they're just people who know how to think. They don't fall for the stuff that's been coming out of the whitehouse lately.

Right on. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Splinemodel]

O'Reilly calls them 'secular progressives" actually.

"White guilt" is psychological mumbo-jumbo that *may* have certain applications elsewhere. But as far as the motivations for enacting liberal social and economic policies, I don't think it's even on the radar. Wouldn't you think that deep-seated notions of fairness or justice would drive those policies? You're not giving those considerations a fair shake, when you know, they are kinda obviously the answer.


Well, at least everyone knows that I'm not quoting O'Reilly because I listen to his show all the time (I don't). But his usage of "secular progressive" seems to embody what SDW is trying to illustrate.

When considering modern liberal trends, you have to look back at the sources: the new deal and then 60's milieu. While the New Deal obviously had nothing to do with white guilt, it seems to be the economic archetype for modern liberalism. But what other than something as irrational as white guilt can explain the modern liberal's vehement distaste for the traditional value system of white america? I could accept that it's just not a value system they appreciate, but it's extremely ridiculous for a society that prides itself on tolerance of all sorts to be so caustic to it's own progenitor. It confounds conservatives (and me too) that there are liberal americans who in public seem to hold conservative american values in lower esteem than arab muslim values, which in reality are 1000 times less compatible with their world view than any american value system has been since the salem witch trials.

[addabox]

Well, at least everyone knows that I'm not quoting O'Reilly because I listen to his show all the time (I don't). But his usage of "secular progressive" seems to embody what SDW is trying to illustrate.

When considering modern liberal trends, you have to look back at the sources: the new deal and then 60's milieu. While the New Deal obviously had nothing to do with white guilt, it seems to be the economic archetype for modern liberalism. But what other than something as irrational as white guilt can explain the modern liberal's vehement distaste for the traditional value system of white america? I could accept that it's just not a value system they appreciate, but it's extremely ridiculous for a society that prides itself on tolerance of all sorts to be so caustic to it's own progenitor. It confounds conservatives (and me too) that there are liberal americans who in public seem to hold conservative american values in lower esteem than arab muslim values, which in reality are 1000 times less compatible with their world view than any american value system has been since the salem witch trials.

Yes, it's the 60s! Every liberal is a dirty hippy, didn't you get the memo? And just like a dirty hippy every liberal hates God and heterosexuality and stable, two parent homes and simple decency and respect for ones elders and America and hard work and honesty and prudence and the smell of freshly cut grass on a summer's day.

They say so all the time at dirtyhippy.com, where the liberals post position papers detailing their utter contempt for traditional white values.

[midwinter]

Yes, it's the 60s! Every liberal is a dirty hippy, didn't you get the memo? And just like a dirty hippy every liberal hates God and heterosexuality and stable, two parent homes and simple decency and respect for ones elders and America and hard work and honesty and prudence and the smell of freshly cut grass on a summer's day.

They say so all the time at dirtyhippy.com, where the liberals post position papers detailing their utter contempt for traditional white values.

I don't know about you, Addabox, but the other night my wife and I were having a nice dinner with some other liberal married couples and we just couldn't stop talking about how we hated traditional family values.

[spindler]

This thread is really dumb. I doubt almost any of you understand the fine points of freedom of speech and opinion.

Let me point out that just because someone is the mother of a soldier that died, that in no way allows their opinion to stop all traffic and demand to be listened to. And I am an anti-war, far left liberal.

When two sides debate an issue, like say what to do about drunk driving, there will be opposing ideas. I think your way won't work and you think my way won't work. And no one has the right to scream "You people that disagree with me are all just killers.". Because if one side can scream it, then the other side can just scream it. And just because you are the parent of someone who dies because of a drunk driver, that doesn't somehow instantly make your opinion on the subject wiser or smarter. You can't then forcefully disrupt other's opinions, get loud and nasty, call the other side stupid, and then demand a free pass from criticism just because you have more of a connection to the subject.

I myself somewhat feel that George Bush is a killer and a vile person, but more because he keeps the war going when it has failed, rather than for starting it. But even though I think he's scum, I still don't think anyone gets a free pass to push their opinion.

If you want to start a fight and force an unpopular position on people, like "George Bush is a killer.", or "Your religion is just an excuse for bigotry", that's fine. It's OK to push something through sometimes. But you have to expect the payback for pushing the idea.

[SDW2001]

You started a thread entitled "Liberal Fascism". Talking about what fascism actually is in such a thread is hardly "technical" or "semantical". If you just wanted to talk about liberals "suppressing free speech when it's speech they dislike" perhaps you should try a less histrionic thread title, like "liberals are dreadful hypocrites".

How 'bout I start a thread entitled "All conservatives are just like Stalin", and then get pissy when people insist on talking about how that idea doesn't really hold water, because I expected them to understand I just meant "conservatives can be somewhat authoritarian"? You would lose your fucking mind.

So either respond to the ample demonstrations of why "fascism" is an entirely inappropriate word for characterizing the American left, withdraw the thread title, or STFU.

There you go again.

[SDW2001]

Right on. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Right on=someting you agree with.

Crazy=something you disagree with.

[SDW2001]

Yes, it's the 60s! Every liberal is a dirty hippy, didn't you get the memo? And just like a dirty hippy every liberal hates God and heterosexuality and stable, two parent homes and simple decency and respect for ones elders and America and hard work and honesty and prudence and the smell of freshly cut grass on a summer's day.

They say so all the time at dirtyhippy.com, where the liberals post position papers detailing their utter contempt for traditional white values.

Really...stop. :lol: I have to go to work now.

[SDW2001]

This thread is really dumb. I doubt almost any of you understand the fine points of freedom of speech and opinion.

Let me point out that just because someone is the mother of a soldier that died, that in no way allows their opinion to stop all traffic and demand to be listened to. And I am an anti-war, far left liberal.

When two sides debate an issue, like say what to do about drunk driving, there will be opposing ideas. I think your way won't work and you think my way won't work. And no one has the right to scream "You people that disagree with me are all just killers.". Because if one side can scream it, then the other side can just scream it. And just because you are the parent of someone who dies because of a drunk driver, that doesn't somehow instantly make your opinion on the subject wiser or smarter. You can't then forcefully disrupt other's opinions, get loud and nasty, call the other side stupid, and then demand a free pass from criticism just because you have more of a connection to the subject.

I myself somewhat feel that George Bush is a killer and a vile person, but more because he keeps the war going when it has failed, rather than for starting it. But even though I think he's scum, I still don't think anyone gets a free pass to push their opinion.

If you want to start a fight and force an unpopular position on people, like "George Bush is a killer.", or "Your religion is just an excuse for bigotry", that's fine. It's OK to push something through sometimes. But you have to expect the payback for pushing the idea.

You're calling the thread dumb but you're essentially agreeing with what I'm saying. No?

[spindler]

You're calling the thread dumb but you're essentially agreeing with what I'm saying. No?

You're only right in this instance because you happen to be on the correct side. When you say things like Al Gore is treasonous because he criticized some minor point of the war effort, that's when your fascism comes out.

You do the same thing. You declare your opinion to be so obviously true, important, and purely American that when someone disagrees you call them atni-American, blah, blah, blah. It is the emotional subjects, like whether to fight a war or not, that test a person's understanding of free speech. If you're like "I believe in free speech but in this case it's so obvious the other guy is an America hating traitor" then you don't really have the freedom of speech and opinion thing down.

[MacRR]

Man Spindler-

Take a deep breath. Everyone seems to be hugging it out :).

FYI- I threw out the mother being shouted out of a room as an example because it fit as a great counter example from the other side of SDW's example.

So no political side is better than the other.

[SDW2001]

You're only right in this instance because you happen to be on the correct side. When you say things like Al Gore is treasonous because he criticized some minor point of the war effort, that's when your fascism comes out.

You do the same thing. You declare your opinion to be so obviously true, important, and purely American that when someone disagrees you call them atni-American, blah, blah, blah. It is the emotional subjects, like whether to fight a war or not, that test a person's understanding of free speech. If you're like "I believe in free speech but in this case it's so obvious the other guy is an America hating traitor" then you don't really have the freedom of speech and opinion thing down.

That's not true at all. I don't take issue with anyone criticizing policy or presenting alternatives. What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

And yes, sometimes I've heard statements that approach treason. I don't think they actually cross the line, but some I've heard are close in my opinion. In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative. That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.

[midwinter]

I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg

[SDW2001]

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg

OK, I'll play. Do you support the statements I referenced above?

[midwinter]

OK, I'll play. Do you support the statements I referenced above?


What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

The only statement there that I find objectionable here is the statement you have incorrectly attributed to Senator Schumer.* It was said by NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. If only he had apologized for it (http://www.wnbc.com/politics/9306297/detail.html) almost immediately after opening his pie-hole, I would feel better.
'
I do not like the idea that we can only attack politicians during certain times. And this business about treason for attacking the president during a time of war is particularly galling, since it doesn't work the other way around. No one was telling conservatives and conservative politicians that they needed to be nice to Democrats during a time of war. They were too busy calling Edwards an ambulance chaser and a jacuzzi lawyer (knowing full well that that defective jacuzzi sucked several FEET of a girl's intestines out) and accusing Kerry of having orchestrated his purple hearts so he could run for president. That is, when they weren't busy insulting everyone who's every won a purple heart:

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg


* Oops. I misread your original post. You did not attribute it to Schumer. Apologies.

[spindler]

What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

If you aren't against physically forbidding these things, then you get at least some credit. But still, if you just casually call someone a traitor because they disagree with your opinion, you are for practical purposes going against basic principles of freedom of opinion.

You say that they someone is doing something "for political gain". Maybe they simply completely disagree with your and Bush's opinion. Proving someone's opinion is solely for political gain is pretty tough.

You say that someone shouldn't call President Bush "braindead" or say that "he betrayed his country" especially in a time of war. Why not? People with power over other people's lives are the most important people to criticize and hold responsible. And there is no *practical* impact on the troops or anyone else for criticizing Bush. The only thing that can be done now is work through the mess. The milk is already spilt. What Bush says on a day to day basis is irrelevant.

In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative.

I'd say that calling someone a traitor or calling them unAmerican is extremely divisive. I think that most people who are against gay marriage are bigots. I mean, the idea that Americans care about decency is a joke. On Desperate Housewives, the new neighbor admitted to being a pedophile. That is part of the plot. Is there going to be a boycott of ABC for showing that? I personally remember when you no one wanted to see that garbage because of the simple principle that children are sacred.

Yet, I don't call the anti-gay crowd "unAmerican", "traitors", blah, blah, blah. I simply point out that there is an American principle that all people are created equal and their opinion appears to fly in the face of it. There's no need to say "I know what the real America is about and you don't." I notice that half of far right people's arguments amount to this.

That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.

I'd have to see the specifics of this, though I'm not saying I entirely doubt it. But on these particular boards, I see lots of conservatives using "traitor", "unAmerican", blah, blah, blah, and liberals mostly avoiding that talk and simply pointing out what fundamental rule is being violated.

[addabox]

There you go again.

Yeah, I'm like that. I have this funny thing where I expect thread topics to have something to do with reality and use words with the intention of meaning something like what they actually mean.

But that's just me, and I realize your personal little universe of boundless resentments requires a lot of latitude in the reality department, so carry on.

[MacRR]

That's weird... considering there is so much more serious rationale for treason flying around- ESPECIALLY in the time of war coming straight out of the president. you worry about free speech? How about dead soldiers? How about experienced soldiers now in government being silenced?

I've never seen anything this poorly planned, and flip flopped and full of shit as this war.

This war is no reason, excuse, or any other justification for any political party or affiliation to stand beside.

How are you not beside yourself with this shit if you are so worried about war time etiquette, troops, or your country?

Amazing...

This war time argument only serves to affirm that the only treason is being perpetrated on all of us- and especially you. When I see someone as intelligent as yourself finding a way to justify current events as it applies to this war makes me realize how damaged our country is.

That's not true at all. I don't take issue with anyone criticizing policy or presenting alternatives. What I do take issue with is Gore (to use your example) screaming "[Bush] betrayed this country!" in the middle of a war. I take issue with Joe Biden calling the President "brain dead." I take issue with someone introducing Chuck Schumer as "the man that would put a bullet through the President's head if we could."
I take issue with people that constantly berate the administration, often personally, for their own political gain. That's what I take issue with.

And yes, sometimes I've heard statements that approach treason. I don't think they actually cross the line, but some I've heard are close in my opinion. In any case, I still don't advocate physically preventing someone from speaking, even if I disagree vehmently with what that person is saying...be they liberal or conservative. That's what happening on many college campuses though...the prevention of conservative speech and ideas and the trumpeting of liberal speech and ideas. Many Universities now have speech codes for example that essentially prevent conservative ideas from being expressed. Some require their teaching certificate candidates to sign statements promising they will fight for "social justice and equality." This kind of thing is as wrong as preventing a speaker from giving his opinion.

[franksargent]

You're kidding, right? Incidents like this have been widespread. By "like this" I mean the physical disruption of conservative speech. Furthermore, can you seriously be denying that institutions of higher learning are often centers of extreme liberalism?

:smokey:

Considering that most institutions of higher education ARE liberal arts colleges, what's your point EXACTLY?

Yes, I get it, we need "fair and balanced" higher education, we need EXACTLY a one-to-one conservative arts college to liberal arts college ratio. TFTFY!

We must educate our citizens so that EXACTLY 50% are regressive thinkers and 50% are progressive thinkers!

:smokey:

[franksargent]

"My" defintion comes from two different dictionaries. Take it up with them.

:smokey:

Given EITHER of those two definitions, then the term that SDW titled this thread with, "Liberal Facism" is, by definition, categorically FALSE!

If they broke the law, throw da bums out, I say, otherwise shutup already!

:smokey:

[SDW2001]

The only statement there that I find objectionable here is the statement you have incorrectly attributed to Senator Schumer.* It was said by NY State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. If only he had apologized for it (http://www.wnbc.com/politics/9306297/detail.html) almost immediately after opening his pie-hole, I would feel better.
'
I do not like the idea that we can only attack politicians during certain times. And this business about treason for attacking the president during a time of war is particularly galling, since it doesn't work the other way around. No one was telling conservatives and conservative politicians that they needed to be nice to Democrats during a time of war. They were too busy calling Edwards an ambulance chaser and a jacuzzi lawyer (knowing full well that that defective jacuzzi sucked several FEET of a girl's intestines out) and accusing Kerry of having orchestrated his purple hearts so he could run for president. That is, when they weren't busy insulting everyone who's every won a purple heart:

http://www.npr.org/politics/images/2004/sep/purpleheart140.040902.jpg


* Oops. I misread your original post. You did not attribute it to Schumer. Apologies.

1. I never attributed the statement to Schumer, that's correct. Thanks for the edit.

2. I disagree that we should slander the POTUS and his administration in a time of war, by calling them liars, murderers, stupid, etc. Criticizing policy is one thing. Those kind of statements are another.

3. Show me one example of Republican politicians' statements that approach the level of vitriol Democrats have used. One.

4. You're changing the subject. No one is talking about a political campaign. Secondly, can you show me that the Bush/Cheney campaign or leading Republicans made those kind of attacks...jacuzzi laywer and what not? No. In any case, there is a big difference between negative poltical campaigning and lobbing hate speech at a sitting admin.

5. Again, did Bush talk about that? Did his campaign? Also, can you explain Kerry reenacting his service in Vietnam for the cameras? Can you explain how so many of his fellow soldiers condemned him? Or that he was deployed for what....3 months? Or that he listed a medal on his website (the "Silver Star with Combat V") that didn't exist? Kerry used his military service first to give his radical anti-war views credibility while lying about his comrades, and then...to bolster his political futures. Go ahead...deny it.

6. Isn't it interesting how you liberals always have to include some kind of sob story (this time with the jacuzzi case) to get your point across. It's a tried and true tactic...use victims to bolster your argument and they themsleves cannot be attacked. Your use of that example is nothing but gratuitous. It certainly isn't relevent to the discussion at hand.


If I'm reading you right, you think that not only should it be legal to savage the POTUS and his administration during time of war (which we agree on), but that it's actually a good idea and that it's perfectly acceptable and appropriate. Do I have that right?

[MajorMatt]

3. Show me one example of Republican politicians' statements that approach the level of vitriol Democrats have used. One.

Here's one calling those democrats/who disagree with the adminstation nazi sympathizers:

"It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler" - Newt

[SDW2001]

Here's one calling those democrats/who disagree with the adminstation nazi sympathizers:

"It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler" - Newt

I'd like documentation of that.

[thuh Freak]

I'd like documentation of that.

Choose your poison:
http://www.google.com/search?q=It%27s+not+an+insult+to+compare+Bush+admi nistration+critics+to+those+who+enabled+Hitler&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

After a quick glance, they look like blogs.

[addabox]

From the transcript of Newt's appearance on Hannity and Colmes, as posted on Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609050002)

He's actually talking about approving of remarks made by Rumsfeld, so it's a twofer:

COLMES: We were just talking about [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [CA] and what she wants to do in this effort to perhaps get Rumsfeld removed. He recently made some very controversial comments, basically suggesting that critics of the Iraq war are tantamount to Hitler's appeasers. Do you agree with him on those comments?

GINGRICH: Essentially, sure. I mean, I think you've got to say that --

COLMES: You're calling appeasers people who disagree with the Bush policy administration --

GINGRICH: Look --

COLMES: -- comparing them to those who enabled Hitler?

GINGRICH: Yes.

COLMES: That's an astounding comment --

GINGRICH: GINGRICH: What's your -- what's your -- why? Why is it astounding?

COLMES: -- that's a very insulting comment --

GINGRICH: It's not an insulting comment.

The video is posted as well, so no one need get exercised about the lying liberal Media Matters.

[Fellowship]

From the transcript of Newt's appearance on Hannity and Colmes, as posted on Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609050002)

He's actually talking about approving of remarks made by Rumsfeld, so it's a twofer:



The video is posted as well, so no one need get exercised about the lying liberal Media Matters.

Every American should condemn these statements made by Gingrich.

Do we really want to just give up our liberties because some politician says it is good for us?

Do we really have to be told we are like those who enable Hitler if we disagree with their war?

For me the answer is NO.

Fellowship

[SDW2001]

From the transcript of Newt's appearance on Hannity and Colmes, as posted on Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609050002)

He's actually talking about approving of remarks made by Rumsfeld, so it's a twofer:



The video is posted as well, so no one need get exercised about the lying liberal Media Matters.

OK, thanks for that. I disagree with him on that statement. I don't think it approaches the level of criticism and attacks from the other side though, especially in total.

[SDW2001]

Every American should condemn these statements made by Gingrich.

Do we really want to just give up our liberties because some politician says it is good for us?

Do we really have to be told we are like those who enable Hitler if we disagree with their war?

For me the answer is NO.

Fellowship

Oh, I see..it's "their war." Those damn neocon fascists!

[ronaldo]

Right on=someting you agree with.

Crazy=something you disagree with.

Yes. That about sums it up.

[spindler]

Actually, there's nothing wrong at all with saying "It's not an insult to compare Bush administration critics to those who enabled Hitler", and I completely disagree with the staement.

The quote sounds dramatic, because he mentions Hitler. But Newt Gingrich is simply saying that there is a lot on the line. If we stand by allow and evil people to gain power, there will be more problems later. While I personally disagree with the statement, and think it it kooky all or nothing thinking, there's nothing wrong with saying "There's an absolutely tremendous amount on the line, and those who don't take the correct route are making a grave mistake."

Newt Gingrich is is no way in that statement saying anti-war people sympathize with terrorists, hope they win, are anti-American, aren't willing to sacrifice for their country, or anything else along those lines. He is simply saying they are taking the wrong strategic path when dealing with an enemy.

Let's say a liberal made the following completely true statement: "Any person who is against birth control allows more people who aren't ready to be parents to have kids. And that means an increase in children being emotionally and physically abused and more children raised by parents that don't love them." Now that's obviously completely true. You take a person who isn't going to be a great parent in ideal circumstances and you make them a parent when they are struggling in life and that means more neglect and abuse. But that doesn't mean people against birth control WANT more children to suffer or be born to parents that don't love them.

Saying "Liberals don't care whether American is overrun by terrorists!" is a sick statement. Saying "Liberals are taking the strategic path that would allow terorists to gain enough power to use nuclear weapons against the U.S." is simply a statement that may be true or may be false.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Oh, I see..it's "their war." Those damn neocon fascists!
Yes. That about sums it up.

[midwinter]

Oh, I see..it's "their war." Those damn neocon fascists!

Well, I don't know that the neocons are fascists. They're certainly elitists, which I guess could play into elements of fascism, though.

[dmz]

Yes. That about sums it up.
Regardless, Saddam, or no Saddam, we have Taliban, Sudan, Iran, etc., and a potent minority of Jihadis who believe they are at, or very near, metaphorically speaking, their Medina stage of existence. Some new direction, policy whatever needs to be brought forward. We are at the 'do something, even if it's wrong' stage, and it's turning disastrous.


...as Benjamin Franklin said -- We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

[FormerLurker]

We are at the 'do something, even if it's wrong' stage, and it's turning disastrous.
You should have been saying that in the months just before we invaded Iraq.

[lunocrat]

The article was about protestors. SDW made up the part about liberals and fascists. As for Iraq, the United States has no right to occupy Iraq. If George Custer Bush believed in democracy he would find out just what the Iraq people want to do with the United States and its three-and-a-half-year demonstration of modern methods of western democracy, a la Israel's daily murder of suspicious suspects and other civilians in Death Camp Gaza. Get a grip: Israel's answer to Little 'Dolf is showing up in the United States and Clinton, Pelosi and the usual guys from across the aisle will be there to kiss ass.

[SDW2001]

The article was about protestors. SDW made up the part about liberals and fascists. As for Iraq, the United States has no right to occupy Iraq. If George Custer Bush believed in democracy he would find out just what the Iraq people want to do with the United States and its three-and-a-half-year demonstration of modern methods of western democracy, a la Israel's daily murder of suspicious suspects and other civilians in Death Camp Gaza. Get a grip: Israel's answer to Little 'Dolf is showing up in the United States and Clinton, Pelosi and the usual guys from across the aisle will be there to kiss ass.

Could you possibly cover one more topic in a single paragraph? Thanks.

[Chucker]

The article was about protestors. SDW made up the part about liberals and fascists. As for Iraq, the United States has no right to occupy Iraq. If George Custer Bush believed in democracy he would find out just what the Iraq people want to do with the United States and its three-and-a-half-year demonstration of modern methods of western democracy, a la Israel's daily murder of suspicious suspects and other civilians in Death Camp Gaza. Get a grip: Israel's answer to Little 'Dolf is showing up in the United States and Clinton, Pelosi and the usual guys from across the aisle will be there to kiss ass.

Please learn how to write posts in a coherent, sensible manner.

[midwinter]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt

[SDW2001]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Teddy Roosevelt

Uh, except no one is saying that. Criticism of policy or even personal approach is fine. The problem comes when the criticism is disingenous and deterimental to a war effort. It's perfectly legal and I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be. It's just in bad taste and is a bad idea.
There's no reason to call a sitting President "brain dead" or "stupid" or to talk about how we can't win in Iraq even. We're there, and now we have to secure the country in the least. The criticism and debate should be abotu how to do that. It shouldn't focus on calling the administration a bunch of liars. That does nothing to help the here and now, nor the future. It is, however, often politically expediant.

[ronaldo]

Uh, except no one is saying that. Criticism of policy or even personal approach is fine. The problem comes when the criticism is disingenous and deterimental to a war effort. It's perfectly legal and I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be. It's just in bad taste and is a bad idea.
There's no reason to call a sitting President "brain dead" or "stupid" or to talk about how we can't win in Iraq even. We're there, and now we have to secure the country in the least. The criticism and debate should be abotu how to do that. It shouldn't focus on calling the administration a bunch of liars. That does nothing to help the here and now, nor the future. It is, however, often politically expediant.

There is no way to win over there, or secure the country, short of total anhialation of the extremists, and that will never happen. So I suppose we will be stuck over there for 50 years as the Britsh were during the first half of the 20th century. I don't think the USA should be trying force democracy on a part of the world that doesn't want it.
Even if we were able secure a democratic government in Iraq, as soon as we are gone they will be right back to killing each other.
Look back through history. Those Muslim tribes not only hate the infidels, they hate each other.

[FormerLurker]

ronaldo - you left out "Bush is brain dead and stupid"!

[ronaldo]

ronaldo - you left out "Bush is brain dead and stupid"!

Oh yes. I forgot that.

[SDW2001]

There is no way to win over there, or secure the country, short of total anhialation of the extremists, and that will never happen. So I suppose we will be stuck over there for 50 years as the Britsh were during the first half of the 20th century. I don't think the USA should be trying force democracy on a part of the world that doesn't want it.
Even if we were able secure a democratic government in Iraq, as soon as we are gone they will be right back to killing each other.
Look back through history. Those Muslim tribes not only hate the infidels, they hate each other.

Well that's one viewpoint, I suppose.